April 30-May 19 (May 13-June 1), 1907

11

Objections to Martynov’s Amendments to the
Resolution on the Attitude Towards Bourgeois Parties
May 16 (29)

I

Martynov’samendment is another attempt to introduce the Menshevik view
that the peasants are more reactionary (or may be more reactionary) in the
present revolution than the Cadets, since the Mensheviks do not say a single
word about the reactionary nature of the Cadets. Martynov’s argument is
all mixed up—the dualism is not due to the peasants’ wavering between
revolution and reaction but to their wavering between the Cadets and the
Social-Democrats. The Mensheviks will inevitably and unavoidably include their
favourite idea of the reactionary nature of the confiscation of landed estates
and the progressiveness of compensation in the anarchist tendencies of which
Martynov speaks. “Anarchist tendencies” in the peasants is a liberal
landlord phrase. As to the subjugation of the proletarian movement to the
peasant movement—it is ridiculous to speak of this after having declared
the reverse, and expressed it scores of times in resolutions.

II

Ouracceptance of Martynov’s amendment would undoubtedly make a
laughing-stock of Social-Democracy. At the beginning of the resolution, we
spoke about a decisive struggle
against the feudal state. Now we must draw a political conclusion from this
social-economic proposition. Our task is to win that section of the
bourgeoisie whose economic position impels it into struggle (the peasantry)
away from the influence of the section of the bourgeoisie that is in capable
of joining this decisive struggle (from the influence of the liberal
landlords, the Cadets). It is in order to confuse a clear political
conclusion that Martynov proposes that what is said at the beginning be
repeated at the end.